Local Government Contacts

Friday, December 21, 2007

Mike Huckabee has turned out to be a disappointment for me. First because his position on border security/immigration became more clearly understood as liberal. Next, the idiotic slap at Rush Limbaugh of all people! Sheesh, doesn't he know that he needs to BUILD a constituency, not alienate one?

I'm sad that someone so firmly on board with right-to-life is not going to be my candidate.

It seems to be the season for people to be offended. Offended by anything remotely suggestive of Christ or Christianity during the Christmas Season. Case in point the preposterous flap about Gov. Huckabee's supposed cross in the background of his video Christmas message. Even if it were intended--so what?

So to be right in step with my fellow Americans I will list things that offend me.

1. I am offended that cultists in America and around the world identify their deity with mine. If you want to make up a religion, don't smear the name of the real Creator with your false doctrines.

2. I am offended that "artists" are allowed to treat symbols of my faith with monstrous disrespect.

3. I am offended that Muslims consider my Jewish brothers and sisters as wretched non-humans deserving of death, and then my country's leaders say Islam is a "religion of peace."

4. I am offended that Islam subjugates women, forces them to genital mutilation, makes them wear a black tent with eye-slits and calls that respecting women.

5. I am offended that "our friends" the Saudis don't allow Churches, Bibles, or any free exercise of religion, but we allow their citizens to come over here study to be pilots and ram planes into buildings.

6. I am offended that my nation and religion are villified around the world when we contribute hugely more than any nation both in government and private donations to folks in need. Whether it is tsunami aid, medical help, education or just plain food and money--USA gives more that most countries produce.

Thanks to Christian church ministries, many of the suffering people in the world are given food, medication and hope. All funded privately. I don't see Muslim countries or even European countries making any impact in this regard.

Thursday, December 20, 2007

Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.

The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s office of the GOP Ranking Member details the views of the scientists, the overwhelming majority of whom spoke out in 2007.

Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists. In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking." Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears “bite the dust.” (LINK) In addition, many scientists who are also progressive environmentalists believe climate fear promotion has "co-opted" the green movement. (LINK)

This blockbuster Senate report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies and original source materials as gathered from public statements, various news outlets, and websites in 2007. This new “consensus busters” report is poised to redefine the debate.

Many of the scientists featured in this report consistently stated that numerous colleagues shared their views, but they will not speak out publicly for fear of retribution. Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies, explains how many of his fellow scientists have been intimidated.

“Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media,” Paldor wrote.

Wednesday, December 19, 2007

An excellent article by Bob Burney at TownHall makes a very clear point....Hey folks, believe whatever you want to, but don't try to pull the wool over anyone's eyes because you don't feel comfortable with the truth.

An interesting illustration of this has been playing itself out in current political news. In an interview with the New York Times Magazine, presidential candidate Mike Huckabee was questioned about his views of the Mormonism of fellow candidate Mitt Romney. Huckabee said he knew little about Mormonism and wondered out loud to the veteran religion reporter Zev Chafets: “Don’t Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?” Well, that’s exactly what they believe! Several news outlets immediately accused Huckabee of attacking Romney’s religion. Blogs went berserk!

How did candidate Romney respond to someone revealing what his church actually believes? He said, “But I think attacking someone’s religion is really going too far. It’s just not the American way, and I think people will reject that,” Romney told NBC’s “Today” show.

How did the LDS Church respond? The Associated Press quoted an official spokeswoman for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that Huckabee’s question is usually raised “by those who wish to smear the Mormon faith rather than clarify doctrine.” She went on to say, “We believe, as other Christians believe and Paul wrote, that God is the father of all … That means that all beings were created by God and are his spirit children. Christ, on the other hand, was the only begotten in the flesh and we worship him as the son of God and the savior of mankind. Satan is the exact opposite of who Christ is and what he stands for.”

She doesn’t deny anything Huckabee said, she is just very deft at using the language of and the association with mainstream Christianity to wrap their unorthodox doctrine in credibility.

Does this have anything to do with Mitt Romney and his qualifications to be president? Everyone will have to decide that in his or her own heart. I just wish the Mormons, including Mitt Romney, would simply be more candid and tell us the straight truth about their religion. Is that too much to ask?

Sunday, December 9, 2007

No, we're not talking about people who think it is God's will for them to strap on a chunk of C-4 and obliterate a busload of innocent travelers. We are talking about people striving to better the lives of fellow human beings. They were operating a Christian publishing house in Turkey when they were brutally executed by having their throats cut.

ANKARA, Turkey - Turkey has launched an investigation into alleged collusion between police officers and at least one of the suspects charged with killing three Christians earlier this year at a publishing house that produces Bibles, an official said Saturday.

Yes the Religion of Peace continues to demonstrate its loving nature. See the original story here

Thursday, December 6, 2007

Now, in the best of all worlds, I don't think religion should have a much to do, if anything, with whether a person is qualified to be POTUS. That said, my thought process and decision making path is going to include all attributes of a person. It is only logical to use any information we have to make a good decision.

Romney made the speach today to help voters feel more comfortable with his avowed religion.

My earlier post on this subject noted my discomfort with someone in such a powerful position who was either deceptive about or ignorant of the historically false, theologically unsound and profoundly anti Christian faith he espouses.

For example, from the speach we see this quote

"I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God and the savior of mankind," he said. While conceding Mormons have different beliefs about the earthly presence of Jesus Christ, "each religion has its own unique doctrines and history. ... Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree."

This is typical Mormon double-speak. The Jesus Christ they believe in is an exaulted man made so by his own effort. The same is true of his father, God...Mormons believe he is a man who achieved god-hood by good works.

"While conceding Mormons have different beliefs about the earthly presence of Jesus Christ.." Good grief! There certainly is a difference, like between a rock and a daisy!

"each religion has its own unique doctrines and history" . That's evidently supposed to make us feel OK, since we all believe in the same thing but just have some little niggly differences in doctrine.

Little differences like the pre-existent nature of God, the concept of the Trinity, the inerrancy of the Bible, salvation by faith not works, and other trivial matters.

So why can't we just be clear about this stuff? I don't care if you worship a watermelon, just don't pretend that because you call it Jesus, then you believe the same things I do. I also reserve the right to consider you a crackpot, but treat you fairly in non-theological areas.

Bottom line, if Mitt gets the GOP nomination he will get my vote....because he will be far better than ANY candidate the democrats have.

Saturday, December 1, 2007

In spite of political shenanigans or corporate intrigue, it seems that developing oil and gas production in Alaska is better for Alaskans than not developing it. I really am not up on the fine points of oil production and there are some heated comments at adn.com with the 12/1 article entltled "6 make bids for Alaska gas line."

Whatever the truth of the matter, developing that oil is going to be good for America and good for Alaska. I for one am glad to see it moving ahead. With further research, I might get a little cranky about how it gets done, but that's just how snowmen are.

If you to the website for Council on American-Islamic Relations, you will find a textbook version of quiet deception. Read the page What is Islam? A copy follows with my editorial comments added.

What is Islam?

Islam is not a new religion. It is the same truth that God revealed to all His prophets throughout history. Islam is both a religion and a complete way of life. Muslims follow a religion of peace, mercy and forgiveness that should not be associated with acts of violence against the innocent.

This is of course a lie...To call what is written in the Koran and what is written in the Bible the "same truth" is either a lie, ignorance or insanity.

The "religion of peace" adherants are responsible for nearly 10,000 acts of violence and terror since 9/11. They poured out of mosques in Sudan last Friday calling for the execution of a British teacher who allowed her students to name a teddy-bear Muhammad.

The peaceful verses muslims trot out are those from the Meccan period -- early on in Muhammad's career. One must understand the Islamic principal of abrogation to see how insignificant the verses are in comparison the the atavistic verses of the later Medina period. To quote from Citizen Warrior:

The Quran's commandments to Muslims to wage war in the name of Allah against non-Muslims are unmistakable. They are, furthermore, absolutely authoritative as they were revealed late in the Prophet's career and so cancel and replace earlier instructions to act peaceably.

Without knowledge of the principle of abrogation, Westerners will continue to misread the Quran and misdiagnose Islam as a "religion of peace."

Mercy and forgiveness?? As in "Behead Those Who Insult Islam?" And ask what the word "innocent" defines. For Muslims, innocent people are Muslims practicing their version of Islam. Non-Muslims (kuffar) and other Muslim sects are never innocent and are acceptable objects of dominance or homicide.

Who are Muslims and what do they believe?

There are an estimated 1.2 billion Muslims worldwide. No more than 20 percent of Muslims live in the Arabic-speaking world. The country with the largest Muslim population is Indonesia. Muslims believe in One, Unique, and Incomparable God. They believe in the Day of Judgement and individual accountability for actions. Muslims believe in a chain of prophets beginning with Adam and including Noah, Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Job, Moses, David, Solomon, and Jesus. God's eternal message was reaffirmed and finalized by the Prophet Muhammad (peace be on them all). One becomes a Muslim by saying, "There is no deity but God, and Muhammad is the messenger of God." By this declaration, the person announces faith in all of God's messengers.

"They believe in a chain of prophets..." Like many statements by Muslims, you must carefully examine the words to see if we indeed understand what is being said.

1. Just believing the certain people existed means nothing. I believe that Muhammad existed, but I sure as hell don't believe he has anything to do with the God of the Universe, Yahweh.

James 2:19You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.

2. Prophets in the Biblical use are men who speak God's words for various reasons and whether or not the list is of true prophets or not...one thing remains clear....Jesus was not a prophet. He said he was God. So you don't get to say he was a prophet or a wise teacher--He was a lunatic, a liar or Lord, and you better choose wisely, my friend.

3. Gods message "was reaffirmed and finalized" by Muhammed. This is a statement I find hard to hear without laughing hysterically. It is like saying that Michael Moore's movie Sicko reaffirmed and finalized the art of tatooing. There is NOTHING remotely similar..except the use of similar names and plagiarized passages.

Certainly, the format, the message, the theology, the character of God, his love for his creation are all exactly opposite - not reaffirmed.

What is the Quran?

The Quran is the record of the exact words revealed by God through the Angel Gabriel to the Prophet Muhammad. It was memorized by Muhammad and then dictated to his companions. The text of the Quran was cross-checked during the life of the Prophet. The 114 chapters of the Quran have remained unchanged through the centuries.

This is a oft-repeated refrain--one that is devoid of truth or even simple logic. I could grant that Muhammad memorized his sayings, but we are putting humans in the loop when he "dictated to his companions." Oops, isn't that one of the biggies for Muslims? Humans wrote the Bible and we can't trust it's authenticity--right? And when was the scrupulously memorized wisdom of the rock god transcribed to a readable format?

{from www.bible.ca/islam}

Contrary to Muslim claims, some verses had not been memorized by everyone: Hadith 511

511. Narrated Zaid bin Thabit: Abu Bakr sent for me and said "you used to write the Divine Revelations for Allah's Apostle (SAW): So you should search for (the Quran and collect) it." I started searching for the Quran till I found the last two Verses of Surat At-Tauba with Abi Khazaima Al-Ansari and I could not find these Verses with anybody other than him. (They were): 'Verily there has come unto you an Apostle (Muhammad (SAW)) from amongst yourselves. It grieves him that you should receive any injury or difficulty. . . (9:128-129) Vol. 6 -Virtues of the Quran - Hadith 511

7. There seems to be a conflict in the claims as to when the Qur'an was collected, and there was not a generally accepted version available: Hadith 525 & 526

525. Narrated Qatada: I asked Anas bin Malik, "Who collected the Quran at the time of the Prophet (SAW)?" He replied, "Four, all of whom were from the Ansar: Ubai bin Kab, Muadh bin Jabal, Zaid bin Thabit and Abu Zaid." Vol. 6 -Virtues of the Quran - Hadith 525

526. Narrated Anas (bin Malik): When the prophet (SAW) died, none had collected the Quran but four persons: Abu Ad-Darda, Muadh bin Jabal, Zaid bin Thabit and Abu Zaid. We were the inheritors (of Abu Zaid) as he had no offspring. Vol. 6 -Virtues of the Quran - Hadith 526

The Quran "remained unchanged through the centuries". Boy is that a whopper...there is voluminous evidence to the contrary see full article.

What are the "Five Pillars" of Islam?

who cares?

What about the American Muslim community?

There are an estimated 7 million Muslims in America. The Muslim community in America is made up of people from a wide variety of ethnic backgrounds and national origins. There are almost 2,000 mosques, Islamic schools and Islamic centers in America. Muslims are active in all walks of life. Islam is one of the fastest growing religions in this country and around the world.

Actually, there are more like 2 million which is less than 1% of our population. Not worthy of swaying the majority rule in my opinion. And Non-Denominational Christians are growing in numbers 10 times faster than Muslims in this country. That's whole point of CAIR--to yell and scream Islamophobia and make press releases and lawsuits substitute for numbers or importance.

Wednesday, November 28, 2007

In response to Bob Novak's diatribe against Huck, Dick Morris has good information --actual facts-- to support the Huckabee campaign. read it here

He raised the sales tax one cent in 11 years and did that only after the courts ordered him to do so. (He also got voter approval for a one-eighth-of-one-cent hike for parks and recreation.)

He wants to repeal the income tax, abolish the IRS and institute a “fair tax” based on consumption, and opposes any tax increase for Social Security.

Sounds like exactly my kind of guy...

Morris makes the point that Huckabee is a genuine conservative while Romney positions himself to get votes. Like I said in an earlier post, I don't have a good feeling about Romney's honesty or wisdom.

Huckabee campaign is not full of cash like Romney or Guliani so stop by and contribute at mikehuckbee.com

We’ve all been here before. Annapolis is a re-run of the Madrid conference which ushered in the Oslo ‘peace’ process. The principal outcome of that was to reconfigure in the gullible western mind a genocidal project as a liberation movement, mightily arm the Palestinians with American and European money and enable them to slaughter more than a thousand Israeli innocents while reconfiguring Israel as the villain of the piece. But that whole process was due to the fact that, before 9/11, a lot of very silly people, including your predecessors, lived in cloud cuckoo-land.

One question, Mr President: what the hell has happened to you?

And concering the real prospect of negotiated peace...the issue is the existence or non-existence of Israel, at least for the Palis. They have made some public statements to the West about how they would live together happily with Jews, but in Arabic at home and in the mosques the chant is still "Kill the Jews...drive them to the sea." So hew do you expect Israel to negotiate with people who's ultimate desire is to annihilate them?

All Palistinians seem to want is constant concessions. And Bush-Rice is willing to give them. I am so dissapointed in my President. Indeed, what the hell happened?

There is a typical response to any concern over 'terrorists' being labeled Muslim, because everyone knows Islam is a "religion of peace." While that is something a mentally challenged five year old might buy, I don't. While 100% of Muslims are not terrorists, 100% of current terrorists (or damn close) are Muslim... with a violence count currently at more than 9,000 acts of terror since 9/11.

I do see however, that there is a difference between fundamental Islam and the Islam practiced by some modern, westernized Muslims. My uneducated guess is that there are a lot of Muslims, born into the religion, who don't really understand their religion. Their "moderate" leaders or imams peddle a watered down version of the Quran.

This conclusion comes from looking at the Quran itself. The document is so illogical and violent in the main, with a few "peaceful" verses that I think of it as sprinkling a little sugar in a lake of mud. Read Craig Winn's book online -- The Prophet of Doom

So we have hundreds of millions of backsliding or ignorant Muslims (ignorant of their religion) who the ostriches like to call peaceful, and who Islamists like to call dead-meat, because they are worse than infidels.

A 'small percentage' of Muslims, maybe 15%, are Islamists or jihadists we are told. Well, that doesn't make me feel too safe...that means 300,000 of the 2 million American Muslims are sympathetic to the destruction of my country. That is more people in the enemy 'army' in OUR country that are in the military in Britain--our closest ally, according to an article at danielpipes.org/

This war is not a new one. The entity who once was called 'the Morning Star' before he declared war on God, has been working hard to deceive and destroy for thousands of years. He found a great foothold in the world of Islam which he developed 1400 years ago. I think these recent photos demonstrate the fruits of an evil spirit. A bit different than "Love your neighbor as yourself" or " But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,"

Yahweh has a plan and a purpose for each of us. He also is in control of the universe and our ultimate fate. While Yahweh has allowed satan to have hegemony in the world for some reason, I have no doubt He can and will protect his people. Look at how many times He has saved His chosen people over thousands of years--through famine, slavery, captivity, oppression and holocaust. Yes, my Lord is powerful enough to conquer this current foe. Little moon-gods who need humans to protect them and their name are not a match for the God of Wonders.

Be wise, be watchful, beware, be in prayer and most of all - be of good cheer.

Saturday, November 10, 2007

Oil. Energy. Enormous subjects for a little old snowman to consider. But consider it we must. We have to make good decisions regarding energy policy because not only our personal economy is involved but the economy and security of our nation.

I don't have a dog in the fight, I just want to know what is the best solution for us. What are the basics?

1. Oil is a finite resource that is being used at an escalating rate, so you don't have to be an expert to realize it IS going to run out some day. That day may be after I'm dead, it may be sooner....but it WILL come.

It is prudent to consider what energy source will be used post-petroleum. This seems like a great place for environmentalists and security hawks to join forces.

2. There appears to be argument about how much oil is undeveloped in various countries...but the clear fact is that the overwhelming current supply and known reserves are located in the Middle East. Billions of dollars (and other currencies) flow to the self-stated enemies of our country every day.

It is prudent to consider what energy sources can be exploited now to reduce/eliminate the aggrandizement of our enemies.

3. The overwhelming percentage of oil consumption in the US is transportation related. Turning down your thermostat is good stewardship and wise personal economics, but doesn't have much effect on our oil imports.

It is prudent to focus what is going to make a big difference for the economy and security--not fritter our time away with sexy, irrelevant gimmics. Diversifying our sources probably isn't workable, increasing efficiency won't solve only delay.

4. Non-petroleum energy sources are available or under consideration. What are the limitations? Why don't we have them in production right now?

Are 'big oil' companies holding back research into alternative fuels to maximize their petro investment?Are alternative fuels just less efficient that gasoline? Are they grossly more expensive? Do we need a whole change in infrastructure?

Sidebar: I read Undaunted Courage by Steven Ambrose a couple of years ago. A tremendous book, and even more interesting to me when the story brought them to Idaho and Washington where I grew up. I have been to and lived near the places they traveled and was struck by the contrast of a primitive, wild frontier in 1803 with the high-tech dam-strewn irrigated flyover country it now is. In only 200 short years we have come from paddling a canoe down the Columbia River at 6 mph to driving a thirty thousand dollar SUV with cell phone and TV down I-90 at 80 mph. Two Hundred years! Do you think we had a bit of infrastructure to build before we could drive that SUV? Of course. Can we do it again? You bet!

How do we best go about this? The engine of rapid development and innovation is entrepreneurship driven by the promise of profit. We need to allow innovators to make money finding answers.

Here is some information I copied from IAGS . This site warrants a close read. I can't verify the numbers but I see no reason to deny the general point.

Based on projection of 2002 production levels, BP Statistical Review of World Energy

Projecting 2001 production levels, by 2020 83% of global oil reserves will be controlled by Middle Eastern regimes.

The energy security and national security concerns that stem from reliance on a single energy resource that is unevenly distributed throughout the world will be intensified as demand for oil grows. The result will probably be:

A handful of Middle East suppliers will regain the influence they had in the 1970s and once again be able to dictate the terms on world oil markets and manipulate oil prices and world politics.

Middle Eastern producers will continue to use their oil revenues to increase their military expenditures, fuel an arms race and undermine regional stability.

Corrupt, oppressive regimes will continue to use oil revenues as a means to maintain their power.

The U.S. will need to keep increasing American military presence in the region to ensure our access to the remaining oil. This will mean further U.S. embroilment in Middle East conflicts, more anti-American sentiment, and a deepening rift between the West and the Islamic world.

Tension between the U.S. and China due to growing Chinese intervention in the Middle East to ensure its own access to oil and Chinese arming of Middle Eastern countries hostile to the U.S. and its allies.

Further drain on economic resources caused by imports of expensive oil.

Such an international system is not sustainable.

It is in our best interest to preemptively embark on a revolutionary change that will lead us away from oil dependency rather than drag our feet and suffer the ramifications of becoming growingly dependent on a diminishing resource.

....at another point in the website they discuss Fuel Cells burning methanol:

Fuel cells can be powered by hydrogen, either in its pure form or else packaged as ethanol or methanol. A vehicle using methanol as a hydrogen carrier fuel, can be built with either a hydrogen fuel cell coupled with a reformer (either at the fueling station or on-board the vehicle,) which converts methanol to hydrogen during usage, or with a direct methanol fuel cell (DMFC.)

The biggest advantage of using methanol as the hydrogen carrying fuel of choice for the automotive industry is that logistically, methanol, a liquid with physical characteristics very similar to gasoline, can be transported and distributed using the existing distribution infrastructure, existing gasoline stations and pumps, and on top of this can be stored on board a vehicle in a fuel tank similar to existing gas tanks. This means that from the fueling logistics standpoint, transition could be almost immediate. While building a pure hydrogen fueling station costs about $1 million, fitting an existing gas station to supply hydrogen in a methanol formulation costs about $60,000.

I see that Honda has come out with a fuel-cell vehicle, and they're making 1000 of them. While the efficiency of FEVs are yet low, keep your fingers crossed.

Friday, November 9, 2007

These guys are just too funny. I posted my thoughts on why the Muslim oft-repeated statement about allah being the same entity as Yahweh was wrong. I listed 4 major reasons..having limited space.

I got a comment on the thread that is quintessentially 'muslim' in its lack of logic and honesty.

First of all these are the points I made:

1. Allah does not enter time and space to communicate with his creation. Yahweh has numerous contacts with his creation, beginning with Adam in the garden continuing through the incarnation in Jesus and culminating in the presence of the Holy Spirit in believers today. This is undeniably a deal breaker in the attempt to argue for identity of Allah and Yahweh.

2. Allah is not constrained by concepts such as logic and reason, he can produce evil, he delights in punishing those who do not believe, yet it is oddly said that he is merciful.

Yahweh is unchanging, always forgiving, always good and always faithful. Yahweh demonstrates love and compassion those who deny him, giving them many opportunities to return to His love.

It was this consistent faithfulness that Abraham relied upon when God told him to sacrifice Isaac...But God had promised to bless Abraham with multitudes of descendants through Isaac. Abraham knew he could rely on God's promise and that somehow God would make this work -- A much different and infinitely more profound story than that of the Abraham written of in the Quran, who submitted to an apparently monstrous command by Allah without any reason to believe Allah would or could make good on his promise. This difference between obedience and submission is food for a lot of conversation.

3. Names: Allah is not a name, but a title, where Yahweh is the personal name of God. If Allah gave the scriptures to the Jews, why isn't Allah mentioned once? Yahweh is mentioned thousands of times in the Bible.

4. Muslims account for the differences between the three faiths by insisting the Bible has been corrupted. On its face, this is a preposterous argument, since the Bible is not just believed to be scrupulously accurate, but historically and verifiably so. Allah's document came through one man, has no documentation even remotely close to the Bible verification.

Interestingly, the Quran says the Bible was not corrupted at the time of Mohammed....so when exactly did this 'corruption' occur? And given the fact that we have early manuscripts of the Bible available from 100 AD, we also have the astounding comparison of Dead Sea scrolls showing the Bible hasn't been 'corrupted' from Jesus time forward.

POINT 3 -- notice that he skipped over POINT 1 and POINT 2. Rather important issues, really. He jumps down to what the word allah means. No mention that allah doesn't enter our world, and that allah is fickle, uncaring, and frankly evil.

First let me start with something, the Arab Christians use the word Allah, actually you can find the word Allah in the Arabic Bible.

"Allah is not a name"

Actually it is a name. Logic failing...just tell a whopper--maybe they'll believe it.

It is in the Arabic Bible because Allah is an Arabic word for God or "the God".

So he first says that the title allah is a name (a personal name) then he says it is the word for "the god"( a title). This poor fellow is very confused. Sure when Arab Christians read their TRANSLATION of the Bible, God is rendered Allah because it is the correct usage of the title. That isn't God's personal name. God's personal name is Yahweh....used several thousand times in the Bible--not one time in Quran. You don't find the word allah in Hebrew Bible.

POINT 4 -

"Interestingly, the Quran says the Bible was not corrupted at the time of Mohammed"

Really can you show me the verse? You are kidding, right? Why then are you admonished to read it?

Let me explain to you something, I know that Muslims always say that the Bible was corrupted but when you ask them how they don't know. That's because it is not true. Simple.

I will give you an example:If you asked me do I believe in the Arabic Quran, I will say Yes because it is the same language that God "Allah" and the same way that it was revealed ... Oh, right, the magic-holy-language-of-Arabic argument. There isn't much of a 'revelation' if nobody can understand it, is there?

but if you asked me do I believe in the Translation of the Quran I will say No, because it is a translation made by Humans who do mistakes or get programed. And all this time, I thought your allah was so powerful he protected his revelation... Do you even know what translation means?

For example the KJV has many errors in it and it is not the first translation, it is a translation of many other translations: The big " I know you are, but what am I?" argument. Scary! And btw, Hebrew to English equals one translation..not "many". Poor guy is a little challenged in the mathematics area as well

POINT - WHAT IS THE POINT?

About the Quran would you like me to explain any misunderstanding to you?It will be my honor to do so. So let's dispense with facts and thinking and just let you help me swallow this big bolus of sh**. Not gonna happen ;o)

Thursday, November 8, 2007

Good news. Rep. Bob Lynn reports on his weblog the legislature will be introducing the following constitutional amendment at start of regular session in January:

“BE IT RESOLVED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF ALASKA:

Section 1. Article 1. The Constitution of the State of Alaska is amended by adding a new section to read:

Section XX Abortions for minors. “Notwithstanding any other provision of the Constitution, a parent or guardian is entitled to direct and control the medical care of their minor child. Subject only to emergency situations as defined by the legislature, and a judicial bypass procedure as created by the legislature consistent with the criteria set forth in Bellotti v. Baird 443 U.S. 622 (1979).

Section 2. The amendment proposed by this resolution shall be placed before the voters of the State at the next general election in conformity with Art. XIII, Sec 1, Constitution of the State of Alaska, and the election laws of the state."

Monday, November 5, 2007

The Alaska Supreme Court threw out an embattled state law Friday that required parental or judicial consent before a teenager can have an abortion.

In a 3-2 decision, the court said the consent requirement robs a pregnant teen of her constitutional right to make such an important decision herself and transfers that right to her parents or a judge.

Holy crap, we wouldn't want parents to be making a decision about a surgical procedure for a pre-17 year old kid. Well, we do have requirements about parental approval for really serious procedures like tatooing and piercing. That's a relief....

Clover Simon, head of Planned Parenthood of Alaska, hailed the decision but said it was important for people to understand that in real life, few people will be affected by it.

"There is a very small number of teens who choose to have an abortion without telling their parents," Simon said.

Anchorage attorney Jeff Feldman, part of the Planned Parenthood legal team, agreed. Evidence at trial was that "very few minors find themselves in this situation," Feldman said Friday. Those that do often come "from difficult or troubled families, where maybe the father or stepfather is the father. Not from intact families."

Oh, that's comforting. Teens don't have to get parents consent to kill their baby for convenience. But don't worry, it won't affect very many people, says Planned Unparenthood. Hmm, I seem to remember the same argument before Roe v. Wade

Of the 1,923 abortions performed in Alaska in 2006, 126 were obtained by girls 17 or younger.

Think about that. One thousand, nine hundred twenty three human lives were extinguished in 2006 in our state.

1923 babies killed, mostly for convenience. And we have political action groups and activists clamoring to save the harp seals, save the whales, save the twitterpated sapsucker or whatever.

And now we have activist judges in Alaska acting like the 9th Circuit court--legislating from the bench. They're supposed to enforce the law not throw it out. There is a legislature for law-making and law-repealing.

Mark my words. If this idiocy stands, we will have an escalation of abortions inAlaska...just watch.

Saturday, November 3, 2007

Snowman declares the following 12 months Islamo-fascism Awarness Year. This is an issue that requires consistent, persistent and insistent declaration of the cancerous danger of Islamo-fascism.

What is fascism?

A totalitarian philosophy of government that glorifies the state and nation and assigns to the state control over every aspect of national life. The name was first used by the party started by Benito Mussolini , who ruled Italy from 1922 until the Italian defeat in World War II. However, it has also been applied to similar ideologies in other countries, e.g., to National Socialism in Germany and to the regime of Francisco Franco in Spain.

Islamo-fascism then is very clearly describing the movement which assigns to itself control over every aspect of life.... Islam, and particularly fundamentalist Muslims in the Wahabbi camp and others seeking to subjugate all of civilization under sharia law.

It is unfortunate that so many in our country are ignorant of what is happening.

Therefore, I will post at least weekly on this menace and the atrocity of the doctrine they believe in.

Thursday, November 1, 2007

One of the many Islamic apologetic sites ummah.com has a listing of the Top Ten Misconceptions about Islam.

Now that the truth is available to anyone willing to just check, this dirvel is laughable. The people who write this are evidently repeating what they are told by other ignorant muslims without the slightest interest in truth. Indeed, the concept of absolute truth seems to be foreign to some muslim minds.

Here is one of the "top 10" ... and clearly the issue of God is the fundamental question.

MISCONCEPTION #3: Muslims worship a different God.

Allah is simply the Arabic word for God. Allah for Muslims is the greatest and most inclusive of the Names of God, it is an Arabic word of rich meaning, denoting the one and only God and ascribing no partners to Him. It is exactly the same word which the Jews, in Hebrew, use for God (eloh), the word which Jesus Christ used in Aramaic when he prayed to God. God has an identical name in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam; Allah is the same God worshiped by Muslims, Christians and Jews.

Muslims believe that Allah's sovereignty is to be acknowledged in worship and in the pledge to obey His teaching and commandments, conveyed through His messengers and prophets who were sent at various times and in many places throughout history. However, it should be noted that God in Islam is One and Only. He, the Exalted, does not get tired, does not have a son (i.e. Jesus) or have ###ociates, nor does He have human-like attributions as found in other faiths.

Yes, allah is the Arab word for 'the god'.

It is NOT "exactly the same word which Jews" use for God.This shows the muslim lack of understanding of language. Just because words may be homonyms, does not mean they are synonyms. Further, Elohim is a title...not God's name, which happens to be YHWH. A name used thousands of times in the Old Testament. The self-described, personal name of God.

So the only evidence this person can claim for the identity of allah and YHWH is that a title for a god used in Hebrew kinda sounds like allah? That is just too silly to even take seriously.

The crux of the matter is what kind of being is God? What are His attributes? What are His directions to His creation?

For the full story, look at answering-islam I personally don't have a problem if someone wants to worship a feather-duster or a caterpillar, just don't give me a line of bs about how this is the same entity as mine.

Do you ever wonder why Muslims make such a big deal about worshiping the same God as Jews and Christians? If they think we 'people of the book' are so corrupted and misguided, how can they believe we are worshiping correctly? hmm?

This is an excellent post by Hugh Fitzgerald at Jihad Watch: I quote it almost in it's entire form because it is worth the read.

The word “Islamophobia” must be held up for inspection, its users constantly asked precisely how they would define that word, and they should be put on the defensive for waving about what is clearly meant to be a scare-word that will silence criticism.

So let us ask them which of the following criticisms of Islam is to be considered “Islamophobic”:

1) Muhammad is a role-model for all time. Muhammad married Aisha when she was 6 and had sexual intercourse with her when she was 9. I find appalling that Muslims consider this act of Muhammad to be that of the man who is in every way a role model, and hence to be emulated. In particular, I am appalled that virtually the first act of the Ayatollah Khomeini, a very orthodox and learned Shi’a theologian, was to lower the marriageable age of girls in Iran to 9 -- because, of course, it was Aisha’s age when Muhammad had sexual relations with her.

2) I find appalling that Islam provides a kind of Total Regulation of the Universe, so that its adherents are constantly asking for advise as to whether or not, for example, they can have wear their hair in a certain way, grow their beards in a certain way, wish an Infidel a Merry Christmas (absolutely not!).

3) I find appalling the religiously-sanctioned doctrine of taqiyya -- would you like some quotes, sir, about what it is, or would you like to google “taqiyya” and find its sources in the Qur’an?

4) I find appalling many of the acts which Muhammad committed, including his massacre of the Banu Qurayza, his ordering the assassination of many of those he deemed his opponents, even an old man, a woman, or anyone whom, he thought, merely mocked him.

5) I find appalling the hatred expressed throughout the Qur’an, the hadith, and the sira for Infidels -- all Infidels.

6) I find nauseating the imposition of the jizya on Infidels, the requirement that they wear identifying marks on their clothes and dwellings, that they not be able to build or repair houses of worship without the permission of Muslim authorities, that they must ride donkeys sidesaddle and dismount in the presence of Muslims, that they have no legal recourse against Muslims for they are not equal at law -- and a hundred other things, designed to insure their permanent, as the canonical texts say, “humiliation.”

7) I find the mass murder of 60-70 million Hindus, over 250 years of Mughal rule, and the destruction of tens of thousands of artifacts and Hindu (and Buddhist) temples, some of the Hindu ones listed in works by Sita Ram Goel, appalling.

8) I find the 1300-year history of the persecution of the Zoroastrians, some of it continuing to this day, according the great scholar of Zoroastrianism, Mary Boyce, which has led to their reduction to a mere 150,000, something to deplore. There are piquant details in her works, including the deliberate torture and killing of dogs (which are revered by Zoroastrians), even by small Muslim children who are taught to so behave.

9) I find the record of Muslim intellectual achievement lacking, and I attribute this lack to the failure to encourage free and skeptical inquiry, which is necessary for, among other things, the development of modern science.

10) I deplore the prohibition on sculpture or on paintings of living things. I deplore the horrific vandalism and destruction of Christian, Jewish, Zoroastrian, Hindu, and Buddhist sites.

11) I deplore the Muslim jurisprudence which renders all treaties between Infidels and Muslims worthless from the viewpoint of the Infidels, though worth a great deal from the viewpoint of the Muslims, for they are only signing a “hudna,” a truce-treaty rather than a true peace-treaty -- and because they must go to war against the Infidel, or press their Jihad against the Infidel in other ways, on the model of the Treaty of al-Hudaibiyya, no Infidel state or people can ever trust a treaty with Muslims.

12) I deplore the speech of Mahathir Mohammad, so roundly applauded last year, in which he called for the “development” not of human potential, not of art and science, but essentially of weapons technology and the use of harnessing and encouraging Muslim “brain power” for the sole purpose of defeating the Infidels, as a reading of that entire speech makes absolutely clear. Here -- would you like me to read it now for the audience?

13) I deplore the fact that Muslims are taught, and they seem to have taken those teachings to heart, to offer their loyalty only to fellow Muslims, the umma al-islamiyya, and never to Infidels, or to the Infidel nation-state to which they have uttered an oath of allegiance but apparently such an oath must be an act of perjury, because such loyalty is impossible. Am I wrong? Show me exactly what I have misunderstood about Islam.

14) I deplore the ululations of pleasure over acts of terrorism, the delight shown by delighted and celebrating crowds in Cairo, Ramallah, Khartoum, Beirut, Damascus, Baghdad, and of course all over Saudi Arabia, when news of the World Trade Center attacks was known -- and I can, if you wish, supply the reports from those capitals which show this to have taken place. I attribute statements of exultation about the “Infidels” deserving it to the fact that Islamic tenets view the world as a war between the Believers and the Infidels.

15) On that score, I deplore that mad division of the world between Dar al-Islam and dar al-Harb, and the requirement that there be uncompromising hostility between the two, until the final triumph of the former, and the permanent subjugation, and incorporation into it, of the latter.

16) I deplore the sexual inequality and mistreatment of women which I believe I can show has a clear basis in the canonical Islamic texts, and is not simply, pace Ebadi and other quasi-”reformers,” a “cultural” matter.

17) I deplore the fact that Infidels feel, with justice, unsafe in almost every Muslim country, but that Muslims treat the Infidel countries, and their inhabitants, with disdain, arrogance, and endless demands for them to bend, to change, to what Muslims want -- whether it be to remove crucifixes, or change the laws of laicity in France, or to demand that “hate speech” laws be extended in England so as to prevent any serious and sober criticism of Islam.

18) I deplore the emphasis on the collective, and the hatred for the autonomy of the individual. In particular, I believe that someone born into Islam has a perfect right to leave Islam if he or she chooses -- and that there should be no punishment, much less the murderous punishment so often inflicted.

19) I find the record of Muslim political despotism to be almost complete -- with the exception of those Muslim countries and regimes that have, as Ataturk did, carried out a series of measures to limit and constrain Islam.

20) I deplore the fact that while Muslims claim it is a “universalist” religion, it has been a vehicle for Arab imperialism, causing those conquered and Islamized in some cases to forget, or become indifferent or even hostile to, their own pre-Islamic histories. The requirement that the Qur’an be read in Arabic (one of the first things Ataturk did was commission a Turkish Qur’an and tafsir, or commentary), and the belief by many Muslims that the ideal form of society can be derived from the Sunna of 7th century Arabia, and that their own societies are worth little, is an imperialism that goes to culture and to history, and is the worst and most complete kind.

21) I deplore the attacks on ex-Muslims who often must live in fear. I deplore the attacks on Theo van Gogh and others, and the absence of serious debate about the nature of Islam and of its reform -- except as a means to further beguile and distract Infidels who are becoming more wary.

22) I deplore the emptiness of the “Tu Quoque” arguments directed at Christians and Jews, based on a disingenuous quotation of passages -- for example, from Leviticus -- that are completely ignored and have not been invoked for two thousand years, and I deplore the rewriting of history so that a Muslim professor can tell an American university audience that “the Ku Klux Klan used to crucify (!) African-Americans, everyone standing around during the crucifixion singing Christian hymns (!).”

23) I deplore the phony appeals of the “we all share one Abrahamic faith” and “we are the three monotheisms” when, to my mind, a Christian or a Jew has far less to fear from, and in the end far more in common with, any practicing polytheistic Hindu.

24) I do not think Islam, which is based on the idea of world-conquest, not of accommodation, and whose adherents do not believe in Western pluralism except insofar as this can be used as an instrument, temporarily most useful, to protect the position of Islam until its adherents have firmly established themselves.

25) I deplore the view, in Islam, that it is not a saving of an individual soul that is involved when one conducts Da’wa or the Call to Islam, but rather, something that appears to be much more like signing someone up for the Army of Islam. He need not have read all the fine print; he need not know Islamic tenets; he need not even have read or know what is in sira and hadith or much of the Qur’an; he need only recite a single sentence. That does not show a deep concern for the nature of the conversion (sorry, “reversion”).

26) I deplore the sentiment that “Islam is to dominate and not to be dominated." I deplore the sentiment “War is deception” as uttered by Muhammad. I deplore what has happened over 1350 years, in vast swaths of territory, formerly filled with Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Buddhists, much of which is now today almost monotonously Islamic. I do not think Islam welcomes any diversity if it means the possibility of full equality for non-Muslims.

27) I deplore the fact that slavery is permitted in Islam, that it is discussed in the Qur’an, that it was suppressed in 19th century Arabia only through the influence of British naval power in the Gulf; that it was formally done away with in Saudi Arabia only in 1962; that it still exists in Mali, and the Sudan, and even Mauritania; that it may exist in the Arabian interior, but certainly the treatment of the Thai, Filipino, Indian and other female house workers in Arab households amounts to slavery, and it is no accident that there has never been a Muslim William Wilberforce.

I could go on, and am prepared to adduce history, and quotations from the canonical texts. And so are hundreds of thousands of Infidels who have looked into Islam, or in their own countries, had a close look at the Muslim populations which have made their own Infidel existences far more unpleasant, expensive, and dangerous than they would otherwise be.

If this is “Islamophobia” -- show me exactly why it is irrational (i.e. not based on facts or observable behavior, or a study of history), an “irrational” dislike or even hatred of Islam. If you cannot show that, then perhaps the word should not be invoked. But if you do invoke it, be prepared to have copious quotations from Qur’an and hadith and sira constantly presented to audiences so that they may judge for themselves, without the “guidance” of apologists for Islam, both Muslim and non-Muslim.

Well said, Hugh. I didn't know much about Islam either--until certain Muslims declared war on my culture, then I learned.

Wednesday, October 31, 2007

School choice should be a fundamental right in America. Not just legally, but backed financially with a voucher system that allows parents to use the taxes they pay for education for whatever school they choose.

There is good documentation for how well kids do in private schools, but this article shows there is a fiscal benefit to the state as well. Alaska is the leading spender of public money on education, but we also have failing schools -- 7 of the state's 40 high schools have drop out rates higher than 40%. Forty percent drop out rate! This is an outrage. This is terrible. This is underreported!

It is time to realize public schools are nothing more than indoctrination centers teaching political correctness not history, satisfaction with incompetence not a desire to be excellent, mindless acceptance not critical thinking.

According to an article at Heritage Foundation by Kirk Johnson,

Educational choice can improve educational achievement and states’ bottom lines. Not only do choice programs help students from lower-income families attend schools that they otherwise might not be able to attend, but they can also save money in the process. This should come as no great surprise; after all, it was a Nobel-prize winning economist, Milton Friedman, who first advocated such scholarships 50 years ago.[8]A record number of state legislatures have considered school choice legislation this year, indicating that such plans are gaining in popularity.[9]More should follow suit to make similar opportunities standard across the country.

The Law of the Sea Treaty ("Treaty") was conceived in 1982 by the United Nations (U.N.) as a method for governing activities on, over, and beneath the ocean's surface. It focuses primarily on navigational and transit issues.

The Treaty also contains provisions on the regulation of deep-sea mining and the redistribution of wealth to underdeveloped countries--as well as sections regarding marine trade, pollution, research, and dispute resolution.

The Bush Administration has expressed interest in joining the International Seabed Authority and has urged the U.S. Senate to ratify the Treaty. However, many of former President Ronald Reagan's original objections to the Treaty--while modified--still hold true today, and many of the possible national security advantages are already in place.

I quote further the same article:

Reagan's Objections

Former President Reagan's first objection to the Treaty was the Principle of the "Common Heritage of Mankind," which dictates that oceanic resources should be shared among all mankind and cannot be claimed by any one nation or people. In order to achieve this goal, the Treaty creates the International Seabed Authority ("Authority") to regulate and exploit mineral resources. It requires a company to submit an application fee of $500,000 (now $250,000), as well as a bonus site for the Authority to utilize for its own mining efforts. Additionally, the corporation must pay an annual fee of $1 million, as well as a percentage of its profits (increasing annually up to 7%), and must agree to share mining and navigational technology--thereby ensuring that opportunities aren't restricted to more technologically advanced countries. The decision to grant or to withhold mining permits is decided by the Authority, which consists disproportionately of underdeveloped countries. Technology-sharing is no longer mandatory, however, there are remaining "principles" to guide its use and distribution. Additionally, the Council has been restructured so that the United States has a permanent seat, and developed countries can create a blocking vote.

Secondly, former President Reagan believed that the Treaty would restrict the world's supply of minerals. The Treaty was originally designed to limit the exploitation of heavy minerals in order to protect the mineral sales of land-locked, developing nations. This is no longer a severe limitation, because production limits to preserve land-based mining have been removed.

The third--and still valid--objection is that mandatory dispute resolution restricts autonomy. Either a U.N. court or tribunal must mandate maritime issues involving fisheries, marine environmental protection, and preservation, research, and navigation. A country may opt out if the dispute involves maritime boundaries, military, or limited law enforcement activities. Submitting to external jurisdiction creates an uncomfortable precedent. Furthermore, it weakens the U.S. argument of autonomy when it refuses to submit to the International Criminal Court. Additionally, a country must petition to be excluded from mandatory jurisdiction requirements.

Carrie E. Donovan is Production and Operations Coordinator in the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

Evidently, the Bush administration sees the need to have a seat at the table because the opening of arctic sea-floor oil exploration will be a real donnybrook. But I wonder if our enemies or competetors are going to abide by any rulings not helpful to them anyway. Like most moves by the UN, this seems to be one aimed at restricting America's soveriegnty and security.

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

A terrific article at Citizen Warrior on how peaceful Muslims can work with us to defeat islamo-fascism.

excerpt:

If you peaceful Muslims are trying to defend your religious beliefs, I think most people would understand and sympathize with your motives. But by doing it here, what have you accomplished? On this site, and on many others, we are trying to defeat terrorism. Have you helped our cause? No. All you've done is try to convince us Islam is great.

You need to understand the effect of your defense on the non-Muslim mind. If you want to end Islamic terrorism, and if you understood what effect you had, you would stop defending your faith to infidels.Because even if we all believed you, so what? Even if you successfully convinced us Islam is really a religion of peace, what difference would it make? Does it help us defeat terrorism? No, not at all. We have terrorists quoting the Koran (urging Muslims to kill infidels) and we have other Muslims saying the Koran is only about peace. Where does that leave us? You've replaced clarity with confusion. You've replaced resolve with hesitation. And to that degree, you've given the terrorists the upper hand.

Saturday, October 20, 2007

I had a post from the blogger at this site yesterday...and was a little suspicious so I went to the site to check it out. I am still a little puzzled but cautiously pleased by what I read.

The Manifesto they express admits a number of serious problems in the Koran and Islam in general which I have posted earlier on my site. Their solution is to take the offending verses out of the Koran and dispense with violent and arcane passages in the Hadiths and Sunna I suppose.

But gee whiz, if you find thousands of references to violence and domination to be offensive and not inspired by your diety, I would think it is time to turn to another source for enlightenment---not make one up to fit your idea of what religion should be.

Don't get me wrong. If these people are sincere, they are very courageous and just the kind of people we need in this world. What makes me shake my head is after acknowledging the awful truth about Islam, why stay with such a false doctrine?

Please, if you read this, consider the one true God who has been patiently waiting for you.

Wednesday, October 17, 2007

2007 Mayor's Diversity Month

September 15 through October 15

We read this headline in the Anchorage School District calendar. The description states

In 2004 the Mayor's Office launched Mayor's Diversity Week – a broad-based campaign that brought leaders and representatives from cultural, community, business, civic, religious and school-based organizations together to host events that combat bias and promote a respect for diversity. The city changed Mayor’s Diversity Week to Mayor’s Diversity Month in 2007, running September 15 through October 15.

OK, I have some questions.

1. Who is paying for this broad-based campaign?

2. What leaders and representatives were brought together, and when.

What 'religious' leaders were present? I didn't see any of them on the calendar.

Rally to promote diversity by Universal Peace Federation ( Is this headed by Cindy Sheehan?)

Understanding and improving your credit score ( whaaat ?? )

The Hollywood librarian

Alaska Divas concert

DMC planning. Review data and develop an action plan to address minority overrepresentation in the juvenile justice system. ( ah, do we actually need to wonder why? Could it be parenting? Oh, heavens no!)

National Coming Out Day Party ( yes, we need to learn to appreciate all forms of perversity and insanity)

4. How did those events combat bias and promote a respect for diversity. Some were likely effective in giving an impression of commonality or let a child register a pleasant feeling about another race/culture. Others were just publicity attempts, or space fillers.

You might wonder how one respects "diversity" anyway. It is rather like respecting the weather. I think it would be more useful to dispense with the facade, and just BE diverse. Don't try to indoctrinate us to respect illegal immigrants or sexual deviants.

I wonder how much of a racial problem we would have if not constantly stirred up by race pimps like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. Gee whiz, so much of what goes for cultural understanding amounts to enabling bad behavior. Listen to Bill Cosby, not Cynthia McKinney, Malik Shabaaz, Conye West or other idiots of color.

And speaking of idiots, given the cast of characters listed above why Al Gore wasn't here. An idiot of a different color.

Saturday, October 13, 2007

In the islamic apologetic scene, or in debates I've seen, there appears to be a pattern to the arguments made by Musilms.

When presented with direct questions the Muslim apologist answers with the "yeah, well so are you" debating principle--as in "other religions have their violent sects too."

Another useful technique seems to be one many politicians like to use...mind-numbing details about totally irrelevant subjects. A good case in point is the recent speech by President Im-on-a-jihad at Columbia University. Presented with some hard-hitting questions, he responded with a lecture on the wonders of science and knowledge.

Appealing to the kuffar's sense of fairness and gullibility is heavily relied on. Frequent use of common terms and names that carry different meanings to a Muslim can confuse or mollify the kuffar.

"We honor Abraham, Moses, and Jesus" . When the names they use are not the people we know by those names.

"We respect the Jewish and Christian Scriptures" Without saying they believe the Scriptures to be 'corrupted' and invalid.

"The Koran teaches us to love the 'people of the book'" Without saying it also tells them Jews and Christians are apes and monkeys or that they should be killed.

"Islam is peace" Well, Islam means submission....and they are saying everything will be peaceful if you only submit - to islam. Hmm, doesn't seem to be working between Sunni and Shia very well. I think I'll take my chances on my side.

When all else fails, ad hominum attacks, yelling, screaming and burning flags or buildings are employed generously. To the more sophisticated islamist, instead of yelling and screaming, indignant accusations of islamophobia are often helpful to set the kuffar on uneasy ground.

Of course, we can always be cut off at the knees by references to the crusades. Oh my goodness, don't bring up the crusades!

It seems to me, the least used, and probably least understood by islamists, is rational thought based on facts.

I may be in the same boat as many of your constituents in that I don't really know what prevailing oil/gas extraction taxes are around the world. I don't hive time to research it and trust that you will have some of that done by your staff.

So I would like to present my request on the subject of the ACES plan put forward by Gov. Palin.

I do not want Alaska to over react to the slimy politics of the last session, and go hard after the 'bad guys' just to show we can. Increasing taxes to the point where it is not economically feasible for oil companies to make a healthy profit doesn't make good sense.

I don't have any problem with profits. I don't care if corporations want to pay their CEOs five hundred million dollars. It isn't my concern.

What does concern me is that Alaska provide a business stimulating environment which employs those of us who live here.

The conceptual problem, as I see it, is we either try to rake off a cut on the front end with taxes or rely on increased employment and circulation of money on the other end to provide the boost in economy.

Thursday, October 11, 2007

More hilarious comedy from the mullahs. This just in via Jihad Watch ...

A snippet of the Crazy Bearded Guys Comedy Show:

In an unprecedented open letter signed by 138 leading scholars from every sect of Islam, the Muslims plead with Christian leaders "to come together with us on the common essentials of our two religions" and spell out the similarities between passages of the Bible and the Koran.

The scholars state: "As Muslims, we say to Christians that we are not against them and that Islam is not against them - so long as they do not wage war against Muslims on account of their religion, oppress them and drive them out of their homes."

This is just too much....bwuahaha . "similarities between...Bible and Koran" HOO HA HA. As if we didn't know Mohammad plagarized from the Jewish Scriptures. guffaw.

"Islam is not against them - so log as they DO NOT WAGE WAR against Muslims.."" HAHAHAHAHA ... Stop, stop it's getting hard to breathe. What a funny show! Completely off the charts. You guys should do Vegas.

Sunday, October 7, 2007

It is a piece on the current series at APU called Engaging Muslims, in a Q&A style inteview with Regina Biosclair, Cardinal Newman Chair of Catholic Theology. There wasn't much digging, just a quick fly-over of someone's fantasy land.

I am happy to learn about other cultures and develop relationships with just about anyone, but please--in the name of all that is good and truthful--don't try to decieve me.

Regina Boisclair was asked by ADN reporter "Why is it important for the general public to understand Islam?"

Before giving Ms. Boisclair's answer, let us look more deeply at the question. The primary assumption by questioner is the "general public" does not understand Islam. Secondarily, she assumes that Ms. Boisclair must truly understand. After all she is chair of Catholic Theology. She probably has time to read and research such things. Well, more than ignorant working people, anyway.

OK, I'm ready to grant a level of scholarship to someone with the august title of Chair of Catholic Theology.

I know you can't wait. What's the answer? Gee, what does the great Christian Scholar of Theology think we all need to understand?

A. "So that they don't go around thinking Muslims worship another god (sic), so they don't go around thinking these people are evil, so they come to recognize that the Muslim world condemns terrorism."

"Westerners have a long history of predjudice, suspicion and fear of Islam going back thousands of years. But Islam is part of the family tradition--it's one of the three Middle Easterm Monotheisms, of which Judaism and Christianity are the others. They all have one god(sic), anointed humans, sacred texts, community who observe prayer, fasting and alms-giving and go on pilgrimage. Wat we have is difficulties in the family."

And this woman gets paid for her contribution? I'm sorry to have to submit that either she is grossly and regrettably misinformed or she has willfully attempted to deceive people who look up to her.

Look again at what she said.

1. "so they don't ... think Muslims worship another god"

I can understand why someone who had never done any research would buy that line. After all, it all sounds pretty similar, doesn't it. Mentioning the names of Abraham, Isaac, Ishmael, Jacob, Moses, Jesus -- gee, it must be a 'family' thing.

What I can't tolerate is someone who espouses scholarship in theology and yet would perpetrate such a monstrous and demonstrable lie. Allah is not Yahweh...the Koran is without question the antithesis of the Bible.

I leave it to the reader to do his own research. There is plenty of information available ... you can start with the links on this blog. Try Answering Islam for starters.

2. "...so they don't go around thinking these people are evil..."

You know, I struggled with a facet of this question for some time after I realized that Islam was a vile cult given birth through a man of very low character. I have had close friends in the past who were Muslim--they were very nice folks. I came to realize that there is Islam (which is most definitely evil) and there are "cultural" Muslims (who may be just as ignorant of Islam as many Westerners). Not knowing much about their religion, they just want like many people, to pursue a decent and quiet life.

What the "general public" needs to know is more truth about what Islam teaches and the best way to help Muslims escape it.

3. "...the Muslim world condemns terrorism..."

Is this person on some high doses of non-prescription medication? Does she have a newspaper, a TV, a computer? Or does she say this because she actually thinks people will believe her?

Unfortunately, the room full of people at the first public lecture did, I think.

I don't remember seeing one demonstration by Muslims protesting Jihad or the Islamofacists. However, there are hundreds, if not thousands of examples of Muslims rallying to chant "Death to America!", or "Kill Those Who Insult Islam". There are many videos of these loving examples of Muslim peacefulness and piety, so it's a little difficult to swallow such a large bolus of crap.

4. "Westerners have a long history of predjudice, suspicion and fear of Islam going back thousands of years."

What in the world is she talking about? Most Westerners hadn't a passing interest in Islam because they never really encountered it--until 9/11. Unless, she happens to be speaking of the few hundred years of Muslim conquest of the Mediterranean and Spain, which was finally stopped by Europeans who were a little tired of being attacked and subjugated.

And please, "thousands of years"? As a scholar of theology, surely she would know that Islam got rolling in the seventh century when Mohammed had his encounter with the spirit world. That amounts to 1400 years...so it would more accurate to say hundreds of years. Assuming, of course, that what she was saying was true anyway.

5. And the most egregious statement of all from someone putatively learned: "Islam is part of the family." No, dear sister, not my family. Do some reading, or stop lying.

On her behalf, I have to say that she is probably only touting the Papal line...for he said the same horrible lie when he addressed Moroccans in 1985, saying "we worship the same God".

"They all have one god(sic)," (tell that to Muslims, who think Christians are polytheists)

"anointed humans," (Only Catholics, sorry)sacred texts, (true)community who observe prayer, (true, but in a fundamentally different way) fasting and alms-giving (true)and go on pilgrimage. (where do christians and jews go for the Haj? Maybe she didn't have time to read the Bible and see that there is no mention of pilgrimage.)

Another question by the intrepid reporter: "What things about Islam would surprise us, if we knew?"

A. Muslims invented algebra. ...The whole foundation of the Western Renaissance and enlightenment came out of Islamic scholarship. The philosophical background to Thomas Aquinas great works came out of Islamic scholarship.?

Ms. Boisclair, you really MUST start reading a little bit.

What you say is so ridiculous, it is laughable. But even if Muslims HAD invented algebra, which they didn't--sorry it was the Greeks, what have they done with it? Nothing. Hey, the Greeks invented everything, right? insert smile here ... Diophantus. was instrumental of course, as well as many cultures. but after al-Khwarizmi wrote about quadratic equations and became the "father of Algebra", what did the wonderful Persian empire do with the knowledge?

What has any Muslim-dominated society done with science? Nothing. The so-called Golden Age of Islam occurred under rulers not interested in fundamentalist, strictly applied Islam. They wisely adopted the scholars of conquered countries and let them continue to study.

As soon as the non-fundamentalists were supplanted by the Islamists, all progress and learning came to an end. Just look around the world! Where are the great economies, the great scientific discoveries, the great humanitarian efforts?

Let me give you a hint. It isn't in a Muslim-dominated country.

As for philosophy, Islam does not encourage philosophy or thinking, so don't even try that one. If you think me harsh....go find out the truth for yourself. This is no time to be ignorant and certainly no time to be hiding the truth from "the general public" because it might offend someone.

We need to understand that Islam is an evil and destructive cult. Only then can we see the need to help Muslims escape that prison. There is no rapprochement between fundamental Islam and civilization--there is only domination. I only hope it doesn't take another 9/11 for you to realize that.